gendered language - michigan7 2014 cfjmp-1

Reading The Gendered Language CriticismThe thesis of this argument is that using language that is intrinsically gendered is bad because it makes women invisible and perpetuates sexism within our community. I know these sounds like a broad generic claim but the evidence is really good on why using language that prioritizes men makes them the normal of every situation and any person who does not fit under the masculine term is lesser.

The short shell should be sufficient to read in the constructive because it provides an impact within the card and critics all forms of gendered language. That being said the more extensive impacts under the impacts portion are great if you are negative because they turn case and any policy making key arguments made in the round. The other link card also provides an impact within the shell so that could work as well. If you are in need of more link cards under that AT: Male Generics are Generic section near the bottom there are more cards that could be applicable as links, but the Gehlert and Kleinmen cards should be all that is needed.

If you have any questions email [email protected]

Answering The Gendered Language CriticismThere are two routes to take when answering this argument the first route is apologizing and making it clear that it was a mistake and it will not happen again. This helps your ethos if you do mess up as well as most judges understand. The second route is the turns and no link arguments that are provided at the bottom. Personally I think these are less likely to win you the round because they seem defensive and the criticism turns them. These two arguments are mutually exclusive because apologizing for something then justifying why you did it is contradictory and net worse than just choosing one option.

Same as above, if you have any questions email [email protected]

Gendered Language Criticism

Shells

Short ShellGendered language creates a system in which women are invisible perpetuating discrimination and violence- all forms of gendered language must be rejected Kleinmen 7 (Sherryl, Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, March 11, 2007, Originally printed in the Center Line , a newsletter of the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, “Why Sexist Language Matters” http://www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_matters) eluth

My course makes links among items on that list. For example, if women are expected to take care of housework and children, then they cannot compete as equals with men in the workplace; if men see women largely as sex objects and servers, then it is hard for men to see women as serious workers outside the home; if women are taught that it is their job to take care of relationships with men, they may be blamed for breakups; if women are economically dependent on men, they may stay with abusive male partners; if women prefer intimacy with women, men may harass or violate them. What I've left off the list is the issue that both women and men in my classes have the most trouble understanding -- or, as I see it, share a strong unwillingness to understand -- sexist language.¶ I'm not referring to such words as "bitch," "whore" and "slut." What I focus on instead are words that students consider just fine:

male (so-called) generics. Some of these words refer to persons occupying a position: postman, chairman, freshman, congressman, fireman. Other words refer to the entire universe of human beings: "mankind" or "he." Then we've got manpower, manmade lakes and "Oh, man, where did I leave my keys?" There's "manning" the tables in a country where children learn that "all men are created equal." The most insidious, from my observations, is the popular expression "you guys." Please don't tell me it's a regional term. I've heard

it in the Triangle, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Montreal. I've seen it in print in national magazines, newsletters and books. And even if it were regional, that doesn't make it right. I'll bet we can all think of a lot of practices in our home regions that we'd like to get rid of.¶ I sound defensive. I know. But that's because I've so often heard (and not only from students) ... What's the big deal? Why does all this "man-ning" and "guys-ing" deserve a

place in my list of items of gender inequality and justify taking up inches of space in the newsletter of a rape crisis center?¶ Because male-based generics are another indicator -- and more importantly, a reinforcer -- of a system in which "man" in the abstract and men in the flesh are privileged over women. Some say that language merely reflects reality and so we should ignore our words and work on changing the unequal gender arrangements that are reflected in our language. Well, yes, in part.¶ It's no accident that "man" is the

anchor in our language and "woman" is not. And of course we should make social change all over the place. But the words we use can also reinforce current realities when they are sexist (or racist or heterosexist). Words are tools of thought. We can use words to maintain the status quo or to think in new ways -- which in turn creates the possibility of a new reality. It makes a difference if I think of myself as a "girl" or a "woman"; it makes a difference if we talk about "Negroes" or "African-Americans." Do we want a truly inclusive language or one that just pretends?¶ Before I discuss how benign-sounding words like "freshman" and "you guys" reinforce the gender inequalities on my list, above, let me tell you about an article that made a difference in my own understanding of sexist language.¶ 1986 Douglas Hofstadter, a

philosopher, wrote a parody of sexist language by making an analogy with race. His article ("A Person Paper on Purity in Language") creates an imaginary world in which generics are based on race rather than gender. In that world, people would use "fresh white," "chair white" and yes, "you whiteys." People of color would hear "all whites are created equal" -- and be expected to feel included. Substituting "white" for "man" makes it easy to see why using "man" for all human beings is wrong. Yet, women are expected to feel flattered by "freshman," "chairman" and "you guys."¶ And can you think of one, just one, example of a female-based generic? Try using "freshwoman" with a group of male students or calling your male boss "chairwoman." Then again, don't. There could be serious consequences for referring to a man as a "woman" -- a term that still means "lesser" in our society. If not, why do men get so upset at the idea of being called women?¶ And why do so many women cling to "freshman," "chairman" and "you guys?" I think I know why, though it doesn't make me feel any better. "Man" is a high-status term, and women want to be included in the "better" group. But while being labeled "one of the guys" might make us feel included, it's only a guise of inclusion, not the reality. If we were really included, we wouldn't have to disappear

into the word "guys."¶ I'm not saying that people who use "you guys" have bad intentions, but think of the consequences. All those "man" words -- said

many times a day by millions of people every day -- cumulatively reinforce the message that men are the standard and that

http://www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_matters

women should be subsumed by the male category. We know from history that making a group invisible makes it easier for the powerful to do what they want with members of that group. And we know, from too many

past and current studies, that far too many men are doing "what they want" with women. Most of us can see a link between

calling women "sluts" and "whores" and men's sexual violence against women. We need to recognize that making women linguistically a subset of man/men through terms like "mankind" and "guys" also makes women into objects. If we, as women, aren't worthy of such true generics as "first-year," "chair" or "you all," then how can we expect to be paid a "man's wage," be respected as people rather than objects (sexual or otherwise)

on the job and at home, be treated as equals rather than servers or caretakers of others, be considered responsible enough to make our own decisions about reproduction, define who and what we want as sexual beings? If we aren't even deserving of our place in humanity in language, why should we expect to be treated as decent human beings otherwise?¶ Now and then someone tells me that I should work on more important issues -- like men's violence against women -- rather than on "trivial" issues like language. Well, I work on lots of issues. But that's not the point. What I want to say (and do say,

if I think they'll give me the time to explain) is that working against sexist language is working against men's violence against women . It's one step.

Long ShellGendered language creates a system in which women are invisible perpetuating discrimination and violence- all forms of gendered language must be rejected Kleinmen 7 (Sherryl, Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, March 11, 2007, Originally printed in the Center Line , a newsletter of the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, “Why Sexist Language Matters” http://www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_matters) eluth















Gendered language turns policy making by creating confusion within the political sphereMartyna 80 (Wendy, Ph.D., Psychology, Stanford University B.A., Psychology, “"He/Man" Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language”, Spring, 1980, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring, 1980), pp. 482-493) eluth

The confusion and exclusion caused by the generic masculine have striking social implications. Although one legal scholar notes the "useful function" ambiguity can perform, "by virtue of its lack of precision,"38 the ambiguity of "he" and "man" is far from useful for those who are included by inference only. A member of the Canadian Parliament, Simma Holt, challenged the equity of the Federal Interpretation Act, which reads: "Words importing male persons include female persons and corporations." Holt was reassured that the

act creates no injustice, for females are explicitly included within the definition of the generic masculine. Doubting that assurance, Marguerite Richie surveyed some 200 years of Canadian law and discovered that the ambiguity of the generic masculine has allowed judges to include or exclude women, depending on the climate of the times and their own personal biases. As she concludes: "Wherever any statute or regulation is drafted in terms of the male, a woman has no guarantee that it confers on her any rights at all."39 Legal controversy over the generic masculine has arisen in the United States as well, involving, for example: Administration of a scholarship fund set up for "worthy and am- bitious young men";40 dispute over a Kiwanis Club admission of women, despite bylaws specifying "men" as members;41 the appeal of a murder conviction in which the self-defense in- structions to the jury were phrased in the generic masculine, thus "leaving the jury with the impression that the objective standard to be applied is that applicable to an altercation between two men";42 and sex-biased application of the legal notion of "a reasonable man."43

Communal sexist rhetoric creates an oppressive environment within debate for women; rejection of gendered language can check back this domination and allow women to participate Hobbs et al No date (Jeffrey Dale Hobbs (Ph.D.. University of Kansas) is Director of Forensics and Associate Professor of Communication at Abilene Christian University. Joder Hobbs (MA., .4bilene Christian University) ¡s Director of Forensics and instructor of Speech Communication and Theatre at the University of Louisiana. Monroe. Jeffrey Thomas Bile (M.A.. Eastern Illinois University) is o Ph.D. candidate in ¡he School of Interpersonal Communication a: Ohio University. Sue Lowrie (BA., Catforma State University. Chicoí ¡s an U.A. candidate in Communication ai Pepperdine University and Assistant Coordinator for the Southern California Urban Debate League. Amando Wilkins (MA. Emerson College) is an Instructor of Communication Studies at Northeastern University. Virginia MiLc:ead (8.4., A bi lene Christian Umversitv is a U S. Peace Corps Volunteer, teaching at Rlpina Gardening College. Estonia. Krixiina Campos Wallace (BA.. Abilene’ Christian University) is a Debate Coach at A bilent Christian University, “CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATiON AND DEBATE iNTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE AS INVITATIONAL RHETORIC: AN OFFERING”, NO DATE, http://cedadebate.org/cad/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/250/234) eluth

However, due to social constructions of the institution of tournament debate, there are still several aspects of debate (hat hinder its being a truly invitational activity. The question of how these aspects are manifested begins

http://cedadebate.org/cad/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/250/234

with the discussion of how patriarchy influences debate. Many scholars have addressed the question of whether or not

intercollegiate debate is patriarchal. Evidence of sexism, or patriarchal bias, is seen in the Lack of women participating at both the competitor and coaching levels (Legue), differences in success rates between males and females (Stepp, “A Word”; Bruschke & Johnson), the predominance of the “argument is war” metaphor (Knutson; Frank: Crenshaw), the use of inappropriate sexual metaphors (Wilkins & Hobbs), the double-binds presented to women, (Crenshaw; Stepp, “Diverse” : Wilkins & Hobbs), and the presence of sexual harassment (Stepp, Simmerly, & Legue; Szwapa). Although with raised consciousness the community has taken

steps to discourage the above practices, there is still much progress to be made. Perhaps gains in equality are coming too slowly because of the very nature of the activity itself Fredal explains: Like other ideologies and practices of domination, patriarchy constantly must be reproduced and maintained rhetorically. Those engaged in this maintenance rarely perceive themselves as reproducing the cultural forms that allow patriarchy to exist. More often, cultural products are seen simply as enacting what they proclaim for themselves: news programs

simply report the news, advertisements simply sell, songs simply entertain. Rhetorical critics who question those ostensible functions, as feminist critics do, are said to be reading too much into an artifact or to be finding things that aren’t really there. In fact, hegemonic practices rely on this resistance to criticism in order to maintain the appearance of naturalness that they construct. (75) Dominance, over-emphasis on competition. and limited freedom of perspective pervade the activity and act as barriers to the effective practice of invitational rhetoric. Tournament debaters and their coaches and critics seem focused on domination. Methods of intimidation and domination in and out of rounds, motivated by a competitive mindset, have been popularized by the activity. The nature of these methods ranges from techniques within the debate, to seemingly personal attacks.

All forms of gendered languageGendered language creates a system in which women are invisible perpetuating discrimination and violence- all forms of gendered language must be rejected Kleinmen 7 (Sherryl, Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, March 11, 2007, Originally printed in the Center Line , a newsletter of the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, “Why Sexist Language Matters” http://www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_matters) eluth










More Link EvGendered language is a reason to reject the team- gendered language perpetuates the violence against women by privileging the man in the abstract in the abstract and the flesh and erases feminine specificity.Gehlert 7 -- Communications Specialist at Berkeley Media Studies Group (Heather, “Can the Term "Guys" Refer to Women and Girls?”, Alternet, February 27, 2007, http://www.alternet.org/story/48527/can_the_term_%22guys%22_refer_to_women_and_girls) */LEA

*edited for ablest language, we do not endorse ablest language*

Yet, for whatever reason, now that my dad and I live in different states and I see him only once or twice a year, I'm noticing how often men and women use the phrase "you guys" to refer to both sexes. It happens in restaurants, at council meetings --

even in grade-school classrooms. And so, a voice in the back of my head is starting to say, Maybe he has a point. Maybe this isn't an arbitrary battle over an arbitrary word. A cursory glance at blog postings shows that the use of the word "guys" is much more discussed and much more controversial than I had realized. Giving credence to my dad's argument, dozens of postings read something like this: Try walking up to a group of men and women and saying, "Hey, girls, how's it going?" The reaction won't be positive. The men in the group

probably won't find the feminine label amusing -- and certainly not arbitrary. So why is the reverse acceptable? Why is "girls" gender-specific, but "guys" is not? "Is it because men are not considered gendered, like white people do not consider themselves a race or European-Americans ethnic?" writes Farrah Ferriell, an instructor at the Women's Studies

Program at Western Kentucky University. "I say yes ..." A few posts down on the same site, Kathy Ferguson, a teacher from Hawaii, writes, "You know, I think I find myself in the "get a life" camp on these questions. ... '[Y]ou guys' [can be said] with affection. Words don't have inherent meanings, after all; they have the meanings that usage gives them, and are not necessarily stuck in past patriarchal contexts. I also find that I have many more important struggles in my classrooms than these." Ferguson's point that words don't have inherent meanings is a good

one. "He" could easily be a feminine pronoun and "she" a masculine word if we used them that way. However, "guys" is not a brand new term. And it's already gendered in many circumstances. "Guy" is masculine (e.g. That guy over there is really

attractive). "The guys" is too (e.g. Will the guys in the room please stand up?). So, the distinction -- and the controversy -- seems to lie with the colloquial phrase, "you guys." That distinction makes me curious to know how many people consciously think "you guys" is gender-neutral and how many are just so used to hearing and saying it that they don't even notice its prevalence. In my case, I had never consciously

thought the term was gender-neutral; rather, I had just never carefully considered it until my dad brought it to my attention. Even if the majority of people really have thought deeply about this issue and still maintain that "you guys" is gender-neutral, why are generic words always male? I have a hard time seeing {recognizing} any difference between "guys" and words like "mankind" or "Congressman." At one time, those words, too, were considered generic. But now we know they're not -- they're laden with meaning . They make women invisible by reinforcing the idea that men are the norm against which women are compared. Why, then, would we want to risk repeating the same mistake? Especially when the solution is as simple as replacing "you guys" with "you all." True, this issue is not as pressing as, say, the war in Iraq or homelessness in San Francisco. But that does not mean it is not legitimate. Just because there's a war in Iraq, does that mean that the divorce someone is going through is any less real or painful? That being fired suddenly feels great? That getting a traffic ticket sucks any less? Or perhaps a better example: Just because slapping a woman isn't as serious as raping her, does that mean we should ignore the former?

On its face, using the term "you guys" seems harmless enough -- gendered or not. But as the number of people who see {recognize} it as gendered grows, so does the phrase's power to influence ideas about identity -- to perpetuate the subtle yet damaging belief that being male is more valuable than being fema le. And the consequences of that extend far beyond the momentary awkwardness of me having lunch with my dad.

Impacts

Case TurnGendered language turns policy making by creating confusion within the political sphereMartyna 80 (Wendy, Ph.D., Psychology, Stanford University B.A., Psychology, “"He/Man" Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language”, Spring, 1980, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring, 1980), pp. 482-493) eluth

The confusion and exclusion caused by the generic masculine have striking social implications. Although one legal scholar notes the "useful function" ambiguity can perform, "by virtue of its lack of precision,"38 the ambiguity of "he" and "man" is far from useful for those who are included by inference only. A member of the Canadian Parliament, Simma Holt, challenged the equity of the Federal Interpretation Act, which reads: "Words importing male persons include female persons and corporations." Holt was reassured that the

act creates no injustice, for females are explicitly included within the definition of the generic masculine. Doubting that assurance, Marguerite Richie surveyed some 200 years of Canadian law and discovered that the ambiguity of the generic masculine has allowed judges to include or exclude women, depending on the climate of the times and their own personal biases. As she concludes: "Wherever any statute or regulation is drafted in terms of the male, a woman has no guarantee that it confers on her any rights at all."39 Legal controversy over the generic masculine has arisen in the United States as well, involving, for example: Administration of a scholarship fund set up for "worthy and am- bitious young men";40 dispute over a Kiwanis Club admission of women, despite bylaws specifying "men" as members;41 the appeal of a murder conviction in which the self-defense in- structions to the jury were phrased in the generic masculine, thus "leaving the jury with the impression that the objective standard to be applied is that applicable to an altercation between two men";42 and sex-biased application of the legal notion of "a reasonable man."43

Only we access real world impacts; eliminating gendered language from our vocabulary is the starting point for a move towards a nonsexist ideology Martyna 80 (Wendy, Ph.D., Psychology, Stanford University B.A., Psychology, “"He/Man" Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language”, Spring, 1980, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring, 1980), pp. 482-493) eluth

Those who oppose the generic masculine are concerned with both equal rights and equal words. Nonsexist language would not only reflect a move toward a nonsexist ideology; it would also function in itself as one form of social equality. Eliminating the ambiguity and sex exclusiveness of the he/man approach would enable us to communicate more clearly and fairly about the sexes. The New York State Supreme Court housed a confrontation in 1976 between those who differ on this question of equity. Ellen Cooperman's petition to change her name to "Cooperperson" was denied by the court, on grounds it would set a precedent for other "ludi- crous changes (Mannings becoming Peoplings)" and expose the women's movement to ridicule. However, she considered her petition as personally and politically important, arguing that "Cooperman" reflects "the pervasiveness

of linguistic male predominance" and is among those fac- tors complicating women's efforts to achieve self-identity.25 Her view is shared by many others who testify to the importance of the he/man issue. For example, Susan Sontag sees language as "the most intense and stub- born fortress of sexist assumptions," one which "crudely enshrines the ancient bias against women."26 The damage the generic masculine has done is itself a strong argument for change. Research has begun to suggest the behavioral implications of sexist language. Sandra Bem and Daryl Bem, for instance, have assessed the impact of sex-biased job advertisements, finding that sex-unbiased advertisements encourage more high school females to apply for male-related jobs.27 Most of such studies have focused on the psychological impact of broad gender cues. While there are ample data to suggest that manipulating such cues has psychological impact, we have not yet assessed the particular contribution the generic masculine makes in creating these cues.

The data on the way the generic "he" encourages a male rather than neutral interpretation, however, suggest that that role is considerable. Cognitive confusion is another consequence of the generic masculine, one particularly relevant for the academic disciplines.28 Joan Huber, for example, has characterized the use of "he" and "man" as "an exercise in doublethink that muddles sociological discourse." She cites the recent sociology text which proclaims: "The more education an individual attains, the better his occupation is likely to be, and the more money he is likely to earn." The statement is accurate only if the individual is male.29 The American Anthropological Association is among many scholarly associations to caution its members that use of the generic masculine is "conceptually confusing."30 Ambiguity results when generic and specific meanings are not easily separable; exclusion results when context prohibits a generic

interpretation. Watch what context does to the supposedly generic "he" used by Paul Meehl to describe this hypothetical researcher: "He" produces a long list of publications but little contribution to the enduring body of knowledge, and "his true position is that of a potent-but-sterile intellectual rake, who leaves in his merry wake a long train of ravished maidens, but no viable scientific offspring."31

Gender discourse determines policy makingMartyna 80 (Wendy, Ph.D., Psychology, Stanford University B.A., Psychology, “"He/Man" Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language”, Spring, 1980, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring, 1980), pp. 482-493) eluth

Why the persistent misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the sexist language issue?54 The simplest explanation is antifeminism, yet this

by itself is not enough. Why should this issue remain a source of ridicule when other feminist claims have come to be treated seriously? Why do some feminists, both female and male, consider the fight for "equal words" to be a misdirection of energy? There seems to be a general cultural reluctance to acknowledge the power of language in our lives, an insistence that language is of symbolic rather than actual importance. We chant in childhood, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me," yet we carry the psychological scars from words long after the bruises and scrapes have healed. We may still be in the midst of a cultural reaction against early preoccupation with the magical power of words. The importance of

this kind of "magic" was suggested by the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis, which states that language can determine our thought and behavior patterns and that different languages can shape different world views.55 It is usually assumed that feminist argument is grounded in the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis. Michael Schneider and Karen Foss worry that "feminists inadvertently have helped to perpetuate and diffuse an outdated, oversimplified, and basically inaccurate view of the relationship between thought and language."56 In its strongly stated form, this hypothesis has seen little empirical support and strong theoretical criticism since its

formulation in the 1920s and 1930s. Yet it has come to be generally accepted in its moderate version: that language may influence, rather than determine, thought and behavior patterns The moderate version of the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis is reflected in the feminist move for nonsexist language. The issue is not what can be said about the sexes, but what can be most easily and most clearly said, given the constraints of the he/man approach and other forms of sexist language What can be done to resolve the controversy over sexist language? A dual strategy, involving both research and action, can be most effective in accelerating the language changes already in progress. The many research projects, articles, and course offerings described in Women and Language News, a

national newsletter, reflect the increasing inter- disciplinary and international interest in language and sexism.57 These theoretical and empirical approaches contribute to our understanding of the nature and consequences of sexist language and lend a credibility to feminist claims. Such approaches need to be translated into other persuasive forms. Pressure on government agencies and the media, for example, can involve letter-writing campaigns,

public advertisements, popularization of research results, workshops for those with power to effect language change, and organized demands for guidelines and regulations encouraging nonsexist language use. Despite the misinterpretation of the sexist language controversy, the movement toward nonsexist language has begun. That movement has been slowed by

confusion. Increased clarity can help us be more effective in crafting future changes. Edward Sapir was aware of the

psychological implications of language. "All in all," he claimed, "it is not too much to say that one of the really important functions of language is to be constantly declaring to society the psychological place held by all of its members."58 The goal of those of us who argue for language change is to revise the character of that declaration, so that our language comes to suggest the equal humanity of all its users.

Community Level ImpactsWomen debaters are caught in a double bind in terms of presentationStepp ‘97 (Pamela. “Can we make intercollegiate debate more diverse?” Argumentation and Advocacy, Spring 1997. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6699/is_n4_v33/ai_n28698260/)

Ragins (1995) defines behavioral level barriers as stereotypes, attitudes, and attributions that influence behavior toward women and minorities. These behaviors include sexism, racism and homophobia, as well as subtle unintentional behaviors that exclude and marginalize women and minority groups. There have been several studies conducted that have found behavioral barriers in academic debate. Worthen &

Pack (1993) discovered that female debaters are indeed caught in a double bind. If a female is passive, she perpetuates the attitude that females are poor debaters; if she is aggressive, she is apt to be labeled as "bitchy". Research conducted on the sex bias of judges concerning male/male, male/female, and female/female teams (Worthen & Pack 1993; Bruschke & Johnson, 1994) found that female/female teams are the least successful .

Communal sexist rhetoric creates an oppressive environment within debate for women; rejection of gendered language can check back this domination and allow women to participate Hobbs et al No date (Jeffrey Dale Hobbs (Ph.D.. University of Kansas) is Director of Forensics and Associate Professor of Communication at Abilene Christian University. Joder Hobbs (MA., .4bilene Christian University) ¡s Director of Forensics and instructor of Speech Communication and Theatre at the University of Louisiana. Monroe. Jeffrey Thomas Bile (M.A.. Eastern Illinois University) is o Ph.D. candidate in ¡he School of Interpersonal Communication a: Ohio University. Sue Lowrie (BA., Catforma State University. Chicoí ¡s an U.A. candidate in Communication ai Pepperdine University and Assistant Coordinator for the Southern California Urban Debate League. Amando Wilkins (MA. Emerson College) is an Instructor of Communication Studies at Northeastern University. Virginia MiLc:ead (8.4., A bi lene Christian Umversitv is a U S. Peace Corps Volunteer, teaching at Rlpina Gardening College. Estonia. Krixiina Campos Wallace (BA.. Abilene’ Christian University) is a Debate Coach at A bilent Christian University, “CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATiON AND DEBATE iNTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE AS INVITATIONAL RHETORIC: AN OFFERING”, NO DATE, http://cedadebate.org/cad/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/250/234) eluth

However, due to social constructions of the institution of tournament debate, there are still several aspects of debate (hat hinder its being a truly invitational activity. The question of how these aspects are manifested begins with the discussion of how patriarchy influences debate. Many scholars have addressed the question of whether or not


steps to discourage the above practices, there is still much progress to be made. Perhaps gains in equality are coming too slowly because of the very nature of the activity itself Fredal explains: Like other ideologies and practices of domination, patriarchy constantly must be reproduced and maintained rhetorically. Those engaged in this maintenance rarely perceive themselves as reproducing the cultural forms that allow patriarchy to exist. More often, cultural products are seen simply as enacting what they proclaim for themselves: news programs

simply report the news, advertisements simply sell, songs simply entertain. Rhetorical critics who question those ostensible functions, as feminist critics do, are said to be reading too much into an artifact or to be finding things that aren’t really there. In fact, hegemonic practices rely on this resistance to criticism in order to maintain the appearance of naturalness that they construct. (75) Dominance, over-emphasis on


competition. and limited freedom of perspective pervade the activity and act as barriers to the effective practice of invitational rhetoric. Tournament debaters and their coaches and critics seem focused on domination. Methods of intimidation and domination in and out of rounds, motivated by a competitive mindset, have been popularized by the activity. The nature of these methods ranges from techniques within the debate, to seemingly personal attacks.

AT: Reactionary Politics

We give an alternative means we solve for their reactionary politics through the offering of solutions only way to create effective policiesRSCC, Women’s Studies, 10 (Roane State Community College, Online Writing Lab, “Avoiding Sexist Language,” January 28th, 2010, http://www.roanestate.edu/owl&writingcenter/owl/Sexism.html, accessed 7-8-14) eluth

When people use sexist language they are actually showing a bias, even if they are unaware of the bias or if it is unintentional. Your usage is sexist if you refer in general to doctors, managers, lawyers, company presidents, engineers, and

other professionals as "he" or "him" while referring to nurses, secretaries, and homemakers as "she" or "her." Our goal as communicators is to identify with our audience, not to inadvertently insult them. Follow these guidelines to

eliminate sexist expressions from your communications: 1. Use neutral expressions: Use "chair," or "chairperson," rather than "chairman" Use "businessperson" rather than "businessman" Use "supervisor" rather than "foreman" Use "police officer" rather than

"policeman" Use "letter carrier" rather than "postman" Use "homemaker" rather than "housewife" 2. Use plural forms. Instead of using "The manager . . . he," use "The managers . . . they." 3. When possible (as in direct address), use "you." For example, "You can begin to eliminate sexual bias by becoming aware of the problem." But be careful to avoid using "you." If used

too often, it can sound as if you're ordering your reader around. 4. Drop endings such as -ess and -ette used to denote females (e.g., poetess, authoress, bachelorette, majorette). 5. Avoid overuse of pairings (him or her, she or he, his or hers, he/she). Too many such pairings are awkward. 6. Avoid sexist salutations such as "Dear Sir", or "Gentlemen." It is always preferable to use the person's name. If you do not know whether a woman is married or not, use Ms. If you are unable to find out the gender of the person, use the position title on an attention line (Attention: Quality Assurance Supervisor) instead of a salutation.

Their argument that “Critiques of speech produces a reactionary politics” maintains the dominance that gendered language produces within the debate community – prefer this evidence it is specific to the debate community Hobbs et al No date (Jeffrey Dale Hobbs (Ph.D.. University of Kansas) is Director of Forensics and Associate Professor of Communication at Abilene Christian University. Joder Hobbs (MA., .4bilene Christian University) ¡s Director of Forensics and instructor of Speech Communication and Theatre at the University of Louisiana. Monroe. Jeffrey Thomas Bile (M.A.. Eastern Illinois University) is o Ph.D. candidate in ¡he School of Interpersonal Communication a: Ohio University. Sue Lowrie (BA., Catforma State University. Chicoí ¡s an U.A. candidate in Communication ai Pepperdine University and Assistant Coordinator for the Southern California Urban Debate League. Amando Wilkins (MA. Emerson College) is an Instructor of Communication Studies at Northeastern University. Virginia MiLc:ead (8.4., A bi lene Christian Umversitv is a U S. Peace Corps Volunteer, teaching at Rlpina Gardening College. Estonia. Krixiina Campos Wallace (BA.. Abilene’ Christian University) is a Debate Coach at A bilent Christian University, “CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATiON AND DEBATE iNTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE AS INVITATIONAL RHETORIC: AN OFFERING”, NO DATE, http://cedadebate.org/cad/index.php/CAD/article/viewFile/250/234) eluth

However, due to social constructions of the institution of tournament debate, there are still several aspects of debate (hat hinder its being a truly invitational activity. The question of how these aspects are manifested begins with the discussion of how patriarchy influences debate. Many scholars have addressed the question of whether or not


steps to discourage the above practices, there is still much progress to be made. Perhaps gains in equality are coming too slowly because of the very nature of the activity itself Fredal explains: Like other ideologies and practices of domination, patriarchy constantly must be reproduced and maintained rhetorically.


Those engaged in this maintenance rarely perceive themselves as reproducing the cultural forms that allow patriarchy to exist. More often, cultural products are seen simply as enacting what they proclaim for themselves: news programs

simply report the news, advertisements simply sell, songs simply entertain. Rhetorical critics who question those ostensible functions, as feminist critics do, are said to be reading too much into an artifact or to be finding things that aren’t really there. In fact, hegemonic practices rely on this resistance to criticism in order to maintain the appearance of naturalness that they construct. (75) Dominance, over-emphasis on competition. and limited freedom of perspective pervade the activity and act as barriers to the effective practice of invitational rhetoric. Tournament debaters and their coaches and critics seem focused on domination. Methods of intimidation and domination in and out of rounds, motivated by a competitive mindset, have been popularized by the activity. The nature of these methods ranges from techniques within the debate, to seemingly personal attacks.

AT: Male based generics are generic

Male based generics are examples of sexist language studies prove this creates a male biased approach that inherently excludes women Chew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Pat Chew is the Salmon Chaired Professor and Distinguished Faculty Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law JD, University of Texas M.Ed, University of Texas AB, Stanford University, “SUBTLY SEXIST LANGUAGE”, 2007, accessed through ProQuest) eluth

While our tendency is to take language literally and not to look for meaning beyond the apparent message, cultural and psycholinguists propose that language conveys much more than the literal message.10 Benjamin Lee Whorf is often credited with the original hypothesis that language is related to perception, analysis, and conduct. He proposed that the words one uses and hears shape how one "understands reality and behaves with respect to it."'' This Whorfian hypothesis of "linguistic relativity" has been explored and debated since its introduction

in the 1950s.12 One contemporary interpretation is that "linguistic processes are pervasive in most fundamental domains of thought. That is, it appears that what we normally call 'thinking' is in fact a complex set of collaborations between linguistic and nonlinguistic representations and processes."13

Considerable contemporary research, for example, has considered how our use of particular ostensibly-innocuous language can shape the way we think about gender and can have sexist effects. Words, phrases, and expressions that unnecessarily differentiate between women and men, or exclude, trivialize, or diminish either gender, for instance, have been shown to be problematic.14 Studies indicate that (1) the use of male-gendered words when referring to both men and women (male-gendered generics), (2) hierarchic and separatist terms (such as man and wife), and (3) terms that influence women's self-esteem or identity (such as using girl to refer to a woman) are all examples of sexist language.15 Consistent with the Whorfian hypothesis, social scientists have carefully and specifically considered how the use of male-gendered generics shapes our perceptions and is linked to gender-related attitudes.16 A. Male-gendered Words as Pseudo-generics A common explanation for using male-gendered generics, such as his, he, and words with the suffix -man, is that the words are intended to and understood to be inclusive of both men and women; that is, they are not intentionally sexist or exclusionary.17 A classic defense was given by William Strunk and E.B. White in an early edition of their widely used and admired book, The Elements of Style: "The use of he as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. ... It has no pejorative connotations; it is never incorrect."18 While Strunk and White were generally correct about the convenience and historical origins of

he as a generic for individuals of both genders, they were mistaken about the lack of gender association and its impact.19 Many social scientists have concluded that when we read, hear, or use malegendered generics, we are much more likely to think of "maleness."20 These researchers found in a variety of settings that, in comparison to the use of

more gender-inclusive terms such as he or she or humankind, the use of male-gendered words triggers in both the communicator and the audience a male image.21 Thus, using male-gendered generics excludes or at least diminishes the prominence of women in our cognitive associations. Furthermore, as we will subsequently

discuss, using male-gendered generics has identifiable effects. To illustrate, in one study, individuals were asked to recite sentences that contained either he, he/she, or they as generic pronouns.22 The study participants were then asked to verbally describe the images that came to mind. Those who read he had a disproportionate number of male images, even though the readings expressly referred to people of either gender.23 In another experiment, participants were induced to complete sentence fragments using masculine or unbiased generics,

after which they were asked to visualize the sentence and to give a first name to the person they visualized.24 Results indicated that using masculine generics generated more male-biased imagery in the mind of the user. In yet another study, participants who were asked to create photo collages for textbook chapters selected more photos of males when chapter titles included man in

the title (for example, economic man) than when the titles did not contain man in the title (for example, economic behavior).25 Finally, McConnell and Fazio found that individuals were more likely to describe the "average person" in an

occupation as male when that occupation's title was male-gendered (e.g., city councilman rather than member of city council or city councilperson).26 These studies and other empirical research confirm that malegendered generics are not actually gender-neutral, prompting their labeling as pseudogenerics or false generics. In this way, male-gendered generics are sexist because those who use them and those who hear them tend to exclude women or at least be biased toward men, even though their conscious intentions are perhaps to be inclusive.

Studies prove that using male generics has psychological ramifications for women and that that rhetoric reinforces traditional gender stereotypesChew 07 (Pat K. Chew, Pat Chew is the Salmon Chaired Professor and Distinguished Faculty Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law JD, University of Texas M.Ed, University of Texas AB, Stanford University, “SUBTLY SEXIST LANGUAGE”, 2007, accessed through ProQuest) eluth

Everyday sexism has psychological ramifications for women. In one study, college students kept track for two weeks of everyday sexism, including traditional gender role stereotyping, demeaning and derogatory comments and behaviors, and sexual

objectification. 7 The women's reporting of more sexist incidents was associated with their increased anger, more depression, and lower self-esteem.28 Other research demonstrates the subtle deleterious effects of sexist language on the self-concepts and attitudes of both men and women.29 Evidence is also emerging that

gendered language reinforces traditional gender stereotypes. Psycholinguist Lera Boroditsky, for instance, explored how the gendering of objects in certain languages affects the way speakers describe those objects.30 In one study, Spanish and German speakers were asked to rate similarities between pictures (of

both females and males) and pictures of objects (the names of which had opposite genders in Spanish and German). She found that both groups rated grammatically feminine objects to be more similar to females, and grammatically masculine objects more similar to males, even though the objects had opposite genders in the two languages.31 In another study, participants were asked to describe a key (a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish). Researchers found that German speakers were more likely to use stereotypically masculine descriptions such as "hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, and useful," while Spanish speakers were more likely to use stereotypically feminine descriptions, such as "golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, and tiny."32 Similarly, study participants were asked to describe a bridge (a word that is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish). The German speakers described it as "beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, and slender," while the Spanish speakers described

it as "big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy, and towering."33 Boroditsky observed that even the arbitrary designation of a noun as feminine or masculine can affect how people think of objects, and can trigger associations that are tied to stereotypically feminine or masculine characteristics.34 Even more to the point, evidence also exists that the use of malegendered words influences the way we think of others. Psychologists Allen McConnell and Russell Fazio designed an experiment to consider whether gender-marked language affects our perceptions of others' personal attributes.35 Study participants read three vignettes, each describing an executive in a business situation that involved a give-and-take process to reach a compromise agreement with an opposing party. All participants read the same vignettes, although the business executive's title varied in different versions among Chairman of the Board of Directors (/wan-suffix condition), Chair of the Board of Directors (no-suffix condition) or Chairperson of the Board of Directors (person-suffix condition). The vignettes also varied the executive's gender identification. In one vignette, there was no gender identification and, in subsequent vignettes, the executive was identified as a woman or as a man. After reading the vignettes, participants answered a series of questions about the executive's personality.36 The researchers found clear evidence that title suffixes influence the assessment of the executive's personality traits. Use of the Chairman title resulted in the executive being described more consistently in stereotypically masculine terms (rational, assertive, independent, analytical, intelligent) and less consistently in stereotypically female terms (caring, emotional, warm, compassionate, cheerful). In contrast, use of the Chairperson title resulted in the executive being described with more stereotypically female qualities and less consistently with stereotypically masculine attributes.37 This pattern was consistent across all three vignettes even though

the executive's gender identification varied. McConnell and Fazio provide a range of explanations for these results. One is that individuals might associate someone who uses the title Chairperson with a particular personality profile (politically left-of-center, independent, or feminine) even though there is no specific evidence supporting that association. Another explanation is that seeing the title Chairman repeatedly primes the reader to make the association of Chairman with man (as described in the research above), and then to link it to

stereotypically male traits. This priming process overrides the fact that the executive's gender is not identified (as in one vignette) or is female (as in another vignette).38 The study participants' own attitudes may also help explain these outcomes, as we will subsequently describe. While we might not yet understand why, it appears that gendered titles affect our perceptions of people and that those perceptions are consistent with gender stereotypes.

More evidence Dayhoff 81 (Signe, Boston University Ph.D., Psychology, “Sexist Language: You Become Your Label”, Apr 4, 1981, accessed through ProQuest) eluth

The most pervasive category in sexist language is Exclusion. By genderizing words, society makes sex-discrimination a requirement. Thus, when one sex is stipulated, the other is excluded. Again it is the

heterosexual male and his attributed characteristics that are the standard against which all things are judged. One example is the so-called "gender-neutral" terms "man," "-man," and "he." The linguistic convention has been that these terms are to represent people (males and females) in general. The problem arises, however, with the fact that these same terms are to be used to specify males only. When terms are used both generically to denote all human beings and specifically differentiate one-half of those human beings from the other, confusion and distortion result. Often the usage is ambiguous. The passage may start off with a generic intent but dissolve into male-only usage, as in the "The caveman was a hunter... and the women raised crops." Furthermore, as we grow up in this culture, we hear "man," "-man" terms, and "he" referring to "males-only" some 10 to 20 times more

often than to "all human beings." The fact that "-man" terms such as Congressman, businessman, policeman tend to be seen as male-only can be demonstrated by the change in the occupational title when a female enters the occupation. Policeman becomes policewoman, and businessman becomes lady businessman, for example. A similar situation occurs with occupations that do not have the suffix "-man" but reflect the male gender-role-appropriateness stereotype. Doctor is an example. When a female enters the profession, she is generally not referred to as doctor but as a lady doctor or woman doctor. The use of "feminizing" adjuncts (prefixes and suffixes) designates a deviation from the norm, doctor, and does not carry the weight of the term unmodified (e.g., President - woman President; lawyer - lady lawyer; reporter - girl reporter). The new phrases sound slightly paradoxical and humorous

AT: Discourse doesn’t shape realityDiscourse shapes reality and comes before forming effective policy.Vásquez 09. Isabel Melo Vasquez, Master Student. Department of Environmental Sciences,¶ Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group,¶ Wageningen University and Research Centre. Environmental discourses in Climate, Community and Biodiversity certification scheme and its land-based climate change mitigation projects. Page 21. MMG

The first one is that practices are part of discourses and form the identities of subjects and objects; as expressed by Paul (2009, p. 65): “inseparable connections between practice and use of language (...) allows one to express not ‘objective’ representations of the world, but a shared collection of rules, which by offering a specific common context, make certain uses of certain words and actions meaningful.” Hence, “discourses are formed by discursive practices containing routines and mutually understood rules and norms that provide coherence to social life” (Hajer, 2005 cited in Paul, 2009). In this specific case, the texts presented on the CCB standards and projects follow rules and express common understanding on how to solve the environmental problem .¶ The second aspect to answer the question is that language is not neutral but constitutive of the world. Language “is the site where meanings are created and changed” (Wetherell et al., 2001a, p. 6). Meaning is given to the perceived world, depending on the discursive context (Wetherell et al., 2001b). Both discursive practices and meanings allow the researcher to interpret how different solutions posed for a given problem are impacting policymaking. Hence, the different perceptions and understandings expressed in the texts are actually shaping the reality of the governance mechanism at the core of this study. As Hajer expresses: “Language has the capacity to make politics, to create signs and symbols that can shift power-balances and that can impact on institutions and policy making” (Hajer, 2006 p. 77)¶ To summarize, policy discourse analysis is a valid way to approach my research question and will provide me with an answer because climate change mitigation and sustainable development are understood from different perspectives and this is both expressed and created in the CCB Standards. By studying what is written in the Standards, it will be possible to assess the relation among the different ways of addressing the problem and how this may affect the objective of benefiting simultaneously climate, community and biodiversity. In the same way, projects are based on the interpretation of the standards and they are also context-dependent, so their particularities will allow me to understand how the discourses are present in the projects, and what the implications are of the discourses representing this process on this kind of projects, as a proposed climate change mitigation mechanism. After being presented the theoretical basis of this study, and the motivation for using policy discourse analysis, the next chapter will explain how it is going to be carried out.

No link- user context Only looking at the definitions of words creates a discriminatory environment which ignores how the oppressed feel about the linguistics involved Martyna 80 (Wendy, Ph.D., Psychology, Stanford University B.A., Psychology, “"He/Man" Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language”, Spring, 1980, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring, 1980), pp. 482-493) eluth

Virginia Valian, a psychologist, and Jerrold Katz, a linguist, countered by posing this hypothetical situation: "In culture R the language is such that the pronouns are different according to the color of the people involved, rather than their sex ... the unmarked pronoun just happens to be the one used for white people. In addition, the colored people just happen to constitute an oppressed group. Now imagine that this oppressed group begins complaining about the use of the 'white' pronoun to refer to all people. Our linguists presumably then say, 'Now, now, there is

really no cause for anxiety or pronoun-envy.' It isn't a question of linguistics, but of how the people involved feel."6

The students' claim: the generic masculine is both ambiguous and discriminatory. The linguists' claim: it is simply a

feature of grammar, unrelated to the issue of sex discrimination. The students' counter response: it is more than a feature of grammar, but a factor which both reflects and maintains societal sexism. This 1971 scenario has been enacted many times in the years since: the cast varies, but the plot and dialogue remain familiar. William James noted three stages a new idea moves through: it is first attacked as absurd; then admitted to be true, but seen as obvious and insignificant; and finally, seen as so important that its adversaries claim they discovered it. If James is correct, then the controversy over sexist language now sits somewhere between stages one and two. Resistance to Change Comments on the he/man issue vary in their subtlety. Among the most blatant are personal attacks on those who attack the generic masculine. One columnist describes the editor who had altered his sexist prose as "an ardent Amazonian." He later bursts out: "Women are irrational, all women: when some women threaten to disembowel me unless I say 'personhole-cover,' I am surer even than I was that all women are irrational."7 Trivializations of the movement for sexist language appear in a wide range of locations, from Time's article

on "sispeak" to a nation- ally syndicated columnist's critique of the "libspeak tantrum."8 This reaction to sexist language appears more striking when contrasted to the popular response to racist language. The U.S. secretary of agriculture, Earl Butz, left office following public outcry over his racist remarks (which the media refused to repeat,

"even in this liberated age").9 Butz's remarks were equally sexist, but he apologized only to the black male members of Congress, not the females; and it was his racism, not his sexism, which caused his censure.

Public reaction to Billy Carter's "witticisms," often as racist and sexist as Butz's remarks, illustrate this same contrast. Sexist language is popularly treated as a source of humor more often than outrage. Pauli Murray has called this ridicule of women "the

psychic counterpart of violence against blacks,"10 and Naomi Weisstein speaks of this humor as "a weapon in the social arsenal constructed to maintain . . . sex inequalities, showing that women can't be taken seriously."11 If pronouns are as amusingly insignificant as some consider them to be, we should expect no outcry were the situation reversed, and the female pronoun became the generic. Yet when the female pronoun has been used to refer to both sexes, as in the teaching profession, males have lobbied for use of the male pronoun. They argue that use of "she" is responsible, in part, for their poor public image and low salaries.12

Cutting

Answers to Gendered Language

AT: Link

No linkWords have many meanings in different context. The K’s attempt to police language is dehumanizing and should be rejected.Ross 06 (Kelley L., Ph.D., Department of Philosophy, Los Angeles Valley College, “Against the theory of sexist language”, May 26, 2006, http://www.friesian.com/language.htm) eluth

Such defensiveness and bad faith accompanies the widely held conviction that the theory of "sexist language" and the program to institute "gender neutral" language are absolutely fundamental to the social and political project of feminism, to the point where mere criticism of the

theory or the project can themselves be condemned as "sexual harassment" and subject to attempts at legal sanction. The theory of "sexist language," however, is no credit to feminism, for it is deeply flawed both in its understanding of the nature of language and in its understanding of how languages change over time. Since the ideology that there is "sexist language" seeks, indeed, to change linguistic usage as part of the attempt to change society and forms of thought, the latter is particularly significant. That the public and the intelligentsia have not been alerted and alarmed long ago that the project of "non-sexist language" is a clear example of what George Orwell called "New Speak," and is thus the reflex of a totalitarian ideology, continues to be alarming in its own right. Nor can we be reassured of the innocence of the goal when the feminist motto, "the personal is political," itself embodies a totalitarian rejection of privacy, private life, and the domain of civil society -- a Marxist politicization of all human existence. Nevertheless, the treatment

here focuses on the linguistic issues, rather the ideological background, for which other pages at this site can be consulted. First of all, the theory of "sexist language" seems to say that words cannot have more than one meaning: if "man" and "he" in some usage mean males, then they cannot mean both males and females in other usage (i.e. nouns and pronouns can have both masculine and common gender). Although univocal meanings were once the ideal of philosophical schools like

Logical Positivism, this view is absurd enough as a rule for natural languages (where equivocal meanings and ambiguity emerge through usage) that there is usually a more subtle take on it: that the use of "man" or "he" to refer to males and to both males and females means that maleness is more fundamental than femaleness, "subordinating" femaleness to maleness, just as in the Book of Genesis the first woman, Eve, is created from Adam's rib for the purpose of being his companion. Now, the implication of the Biblical story may well be precisely that Adam is more fundamental than Eve, but the Bible did not create the language, Hebrew, in which it is written. If we are going to talk about the linguistic structure of Hebrew as distinct from the social ideology of the Bible, it is one thing to argue that the system of grammatical gender allowed the interpretation of gender embodied in the story of Adam and Eve and something very much different to argue that such an interpretive meaning necessarily underlies the original grammar of Hebrew -- or Akkadian, Arabic, Greek, French, Spanish, English,

Swahili, etc. -- or that such a system of grammatical gender requires such an interpretation. What a language with its gender system means is what people use it to mean. It is an evil principle to think that we can tell other people what they mean by what they say, because of some theory we have that makes it mean something in particular to us, even when they obviously mean something else. Nevertheless, there is now a common principle, in feminism and elsewhere (especially flourishing in literary criticism), that meaning is only in the response of the interpreter, not in the mind of the speaker, even if the speaker is to be sued or charged with a crime for the interpreter having the response that they do. There is also on top of this the Marxist theory of "false consciousness," which holds that "true" meaning follows from the underlying economic structure, today usually just called the "power" relationships. Most people are unaware of the power relationships which produce the concepts and language

that they use, and so what people think they mean by their own statements and language is an illusion. The implications of these principles are dehumanizing and totalitarian: what individual people think and want is irrelevant and to be disregarded, even by laws and political authorities forcing them to behave, and speak, in certain ways. But they are principles that make it possible to dismiss the common sense view that few people speaking English who said "man" in statements like "man is a rational animal" were referring exclusively to males, even though this usage was clear to all, from the context, for centuries before feminism decided that people didn't

"really" mean that. But even if some speakers really did mean that, it is actually irrelevant to the freedom of individuals to mean whatever they intend to mean through language in the conventionally available forms that they choose. What was meant by the gender system in the languages that ultimately gave rise to Hebrew is lost in whatever it was that the

speakers of those languages were saying to each other; but what we can say about the functioning of gender systems and about language in general is very different from the claims that the theory of "sexist language" makes.

http://www.friesian.com/language.htm

AT: ALT

Solvency TurnCritiques of speech produces a reactionary politics in which change is focused on language directly trading off with efforts to reform the socioeconomic root causes of injusticeBrown 01 (Wendy, Professor Political Science UC Berkeley, Politics Out of History, pg. 35-37)

“Speech codes kill critique,” Henry Louis Gates remarked in a 1993 essay on hate speech.14 Although Gates was referring to what

happens when hate speech regulations, and the debates about them, usurp the discursive space in which one might have offered a substantive political response to bigoted epithets, his point also applies to prohibitions against

questioning from within selected political practices or institutions. But turning political questions into moralistic ones—as speech codes of any sort do—not only prohibits certain questions and man dates certain genuflections, it also expresses a profound hostility to ward political life insofar as it seeks to preempt argument with a legis lated and enforced truth . And the realization of that patently undemocratic desire can only and always convert emancipatory aspi rations into reactionary ones. Indeed, it insulates those aspirations from questioning at the very moment that Weberian forces of rationalization and bureaucratization are quite likely to be domesticating them from another

direction. Here we greet a persistent political para dox: the moralistic defense of critical practices, or of any besieged identity, weakens what it strives to fortify precisely by sequestering those practices from the kind of critical inquiry out of which they were born. Thus Gates might have said, “Speech codes, born of social critique, kill critique.” And, we might add, contemporary identity-based institutions, born of social critique, invariably become conserva tive as they are forced to essentialize the identity and naturalize the boundaries of what they once grasped as a contingent effect of histori cally specific social powers . But

moralistic reproaches to certain kinds of speech or argument kill critique not only by displacing it with arguments about abstract rights versus identity-bound injuries, but also by configuring political injustice and political righteousness as a problem of remarks, attitude, and speech rather than as a matter of historical, political-economic, and cultural formations of power. Rather than offering analytically substantive accounts of the forces of injustice or injury, they condemn the manifestation of these forces in particular remarks or events. There is, in the inclination to ban (formally or informally) certain utterances and to mandate others, a politics of rhetoric and gesture that itself symptomizes despair over effecting change at more significant levels. As vast quantities of left and liberal attention go to determining what socially marked individuals say, how they are represented, and how many of each kind appear in certain institutions or are appointed to various commissions, the sources that generate racism, poverty, vio - lence against women, and other elements of social injustice remain relatively unarticulated and unaddressed. We are lost as how to ad dress those sources; but rather than examine this loss or disorienta tion, rather than bear the humiliation of our impotence, we posture as if we were still fighting the big and good fight in our clamor over words and names. Don’t mourn, moralize.

Their impact assumes that identity is the end of politics – this is the most destructive form of politics – we must engage in argument over the terminology of the 1AC/ 1NC in the public sphere Butler 2004 (Judith, Professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley, Judith Butler Reader, page 337-338)

There are, however, obligations. The assertion of identity can never become the end of politics itself. This is a terrible American conceit – the idea that if you accomplish your identity, you are there; that you’ve achieved recognition, status, legitimation; and that that’s the end of your struggle, as if becoming visible, becoming sayable is the end of politics. That’s not the case because what that perspective fails to do is to ask, “What

are the conditions of sayability, of speak ability, of visibility?” Does one want a place within them? Does one want to be assimilated to them? Or does one want to ask some more profound questions about how political structures work to delimit what visibility will be wand what sayability

will be?” Those critical questions cannot be asked if the only thing you want is to achieve visibility and say ability within the existing order. So, I have a real problem with identity becoming the aim of politics itself. To have a conference in Beijing on “women’s human rights” is great. You must have such events, and there must be lots of people who go, but we must constantly question what it means that we gather there under that rubric and what that rubric can mean – and not just in an abstract way. For example, when we’re talking about sexual autonomy, and reproductive freedom, and anti-rape laws, and discrimination, and rights to divorce, etc., we need to ask, “How is gender being positioned? How is it being defined in relationship to those carious practices? How is it being defined internationally?” I don’t think that when you say that there’s going to be an international conference on women’s rights that everybody comes to that conference agreeing on what a “woman” is. Nor do you ask in advance that they achieve consensus. And, of course, there was a crisis at the Beijing conference. In what’s called the “pre-con-proposal,” the pre-conference writings, the organizers wanted to use the language of gender to talk about what a woman is, but the Vatican denounced the word gender. Many Catholic countries also voiced their opposition to any platform that used the word gender because that would suggest that women are not defined by their biological roles as mothers, and it would also suggest that those biological roles are not mandated by theology. And if you made a distinction between theology, biology, and cultural meaning, that was considered to be a very dangerous form of Western relativism. So the very word gender became extremely controversial: “Are they saying that

there are more then two genders?” Then the Vatican came out against Anne Fausto-Sterling, and there was a big argument about that. But my sense is that yes, you use the words. If gender is the word that produces that argument, then use that word. If woman is the word that produces that argument, great. Those are the conflicts that have to be put on the table, and such words are very useful. And the more public the conflicts, the more diverse they are, the better it is.

No impactGendered language is not the root cause of patriarchy- empirics prove sexism isn’t changed even after gender is removed from languageRoss 06 (Kelley L., Ph.D., Department of Philosophy, Los Angeles Valley College, “Against the theory of sexist language”, May 26, 2006, http://www.friesian.com/language.htm) eluth

But all of "sexist language" doctrine as a theory can actually be tested: We would expect that if linguistic gender were a correlate of social form, an engine for the enforcement of patriarchy or a reflection of the existence of patriarchy, then we would find it present

in sexist or patriarchal societies and absent in non-sexist or non-patriarchal societies. In fact, the presence of gender in language bears no relation whatsoever to the nature of the corresponding societies. The best historically conspicuous example is Persian. Old Persian, like Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, had the original Indo-European genders of masculine,

feminine, and neuter. By Middle Persian all gender had disappeared. This was not the result of Persian feminist criticism, nor was it the result of the evolution of an equal opportunity society for women. It just happened -- as most kinds of linguistic change do. Modern Persian is a language completely without gender. There are not even different words for "he" and "she," just the unisex un. (There are not even different titles for

married and unmarried women: Persian khânum can be translated as "Ms.") Nevertheless, after some progress under Western influence, the Revolutionary Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini retreated from the modern world into a vigorous reëstablishment of mediaevalism, putting everyone, especially women, back into their traditional places. So the advice could be: If someone wants "non-sexist language," move to Iran. But that probably would not be quite

what they have in mind. Why didn't the "gender free" Persian language create a feminist utopia? This goes to show us that gender in language is completely irrelevant to the sexual openness of society. And one of the greatest ironies for us is that a feminist attempt to produce a gender free "non-sexist language" in English could only be contemplated in the first place because grammatical gender has already all but disappeared from English. Feminist complaints must focus on the meaning of words like "man," even though words can mean anything by convention, because the pronouns "he," "she", and "it" are all that remain grammatically of the three Indo-European genders. Getting gender to disappear in German or French or Spanish (etc.), on the other hand, would be a hopeless project without completely altering the structure of the languages [note]. Occasionally feminists say that they are personally offended by people referring to ships or aircraft as "she"; and manuals of "non-sexist" language usually require that inanimate objects be "it" without exception. Good luck in French. Since every noun is either masculine or feminine, not only would this feature have to be abolished, but an entirely new gender, the neuter, presumably with new pronouns, would have to be created. Then there would have to be decisions about words like livre, which is differentiated into two words by gender alone: le livre is "book," from Latin liber, while la livre is "pound," from Latin libra. French doesn't even have English's happy refuge from inclusive "he" in "they," since you still have to decide in the third person plural between ils and elles. Only on ("one") allows for a gender free (or common gender) pronoun, just as "one" does in English.

http://www.friesian.com/language.htm

Discourse Doesn’t Shape Reality

Words have unlimited meaning should be taken in the context that the speaker is using themSayer 93 (Andrew, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, “POSTMODERNIST THOUGHT IN GEOGRAPHY: A REALIST VIEW,” Antipode 25:4, pp. 320-344)

This weakening of traditional ideas of meaning and reference has prompted another version of our first Pomo-flip. Having realized that words do not establish meanings singly and through reference/denotation (naive objectivism) it is concluded that they neither convey authors’/ speakers’ intentions nor refer to anything outside discourse at all; meanings are endlessly ”deferred” intra-discursively without reference to any extra-discursive reality, and we are free to interpret texts as we wish. Taken to the extreme, this embodies a standard contradiction of relativism, for if we are free to interpret what postmodernists write as we like, then we can interpret them against their intentions, attributing to them views diametrically opposed to those which they (appear to) profess, for of course they have denied themselves grounds for complaining about this! While we can endlessly reinterpret “texts,” it is a precondition of communication and social life that a large proportion of signifiers and sense relations are relatively stable. The very intelligibility of language and its use in material practice depends on it having fairly stable and successful reference (Davidson, 1987); ironically this applies to postmodernists arguing for the instability of relations between word and object as much as anyone else! The arguments commonly put forward to challenge the belief that we can make stable reference to objects tend to take two forms. One concerns the arbitrary nature of the relationship between any individual word and object: why should an object be called "tree" rather than "arbre" or whatever? However, it does not follow that the relationship between lexemes is arbitrary, so that trees or arbres can have not only leaves and roots but heart attacks. Once objects have been "arbitrarily" given names, the conventions governing how terms are combined to make meaningful discourse which can inform successful action are far from arbitrary (Giddens, 1979:ll-16; 198781ff ). Where discursively guided actions are successful, this suggests some relationship between the structure of the discourse applying to those actions and the structure of the material actions and objects which are its referents. This relationship is, again, not usefully characterized as one of absolute truth. Failures of discourse to guide practice suggest that the world is not the creature of the play of difference among signifiers - which is precisely why we worry about the status of our beliefs as we do.

gendered language - michigan7 2014 cfjmp-1

Documents